Ss_J9_Goten

How do you know the CEO worked harder? Who's to say the construction worker hasn't pulled double shifts, etc. just to get by? What if what he does is back breaking labour? Things aren't all black and white; just because you earn more doesn't mean you earned it.

Well do you think everyone should pay the same tax rates? Or do you think tax should be regressive? If you picked the former, well either tax for the poorer goes up (which leaves them up [cabbage] creek without a paddle) so that the government gets to keep their lovely revenue, or the government loses their lovely revenue and public projects (e.g. hospitals) and the like receive less funding. The latter, well you're asking people who can't pay to pay for those who can pay...which doesn't make a lot of sense.

So, honest question, neither of you find anything wrong with people taking what they want just because they can? Yeah, and I'd actually feel better if I have the cd. It's just something about owning the physical product and being able to put it in my cd player that makes me happy, but to each their own, I guess. But this just isn't a case of selfishness, I'm more appalled with his attitude than that. 1. So you can't summon even a little bit of empathy? My point was that you're not entitled to anything unless you pay for it (unless it's being given to you willingly for free). I'd also be interested as to why you feel you're entitled to it. 2. Um, yeah I know you said that. I'm pretty sure if you read my post, you'd know that I know that. 3. Mark-up is a pretty easy concept to grasp. They spend money producing the physical copy; they spend money developing the original copy. They have to pay game designers, marketing, etc. And this is a big difference from a charity, how can you even begin to compare the two, in all seriousness? And nice work jackass, saying you bought three RCT's would indicate to most people you bought three copies of the game. So don't fire up at me for your poor communication. 4. You're not entitled to anything. Words cannot even begin to convey my utter disdain for your attitude. 5. I always hated posting images, but this seemed so perfect...

I'm for "piracy" as well, but you're arguments are just [developmentally delayed]ed. You're acting as if you're entitled to these things. 1. So you'd feel someone was fully justified if they took something of yours rather than paying for it? 2. That's stupid; just because (in your mind) they probably don't own the rights doesn't mean they don't own the rights. Besides which, a better argument would be that the money goes to the label rather than the artist. 3. You didn't give that money to them, you bought something off them. Big difference. Stop acting as if you're doing them a [bleep]ing charity by buying those (and why the hell would you need three?). And yeah, it's their product, which they own the rights to, so that throwing you a bone [cabbage] doesn't fly. 4. If you don't have the money for it, suck it up. That's the weakest argument I've ever heard (don't worry, you're not the first). The only time that excuse becomes even remotely acceptable is when it's a necessity.

I'll try to find a better pic but for now this'll have to do.

Penumbra: Overture?

But today you're fine :D

Half bailey's, half butterscotch schnapps =P~ Ice cold pre-mixed Jack Daniels. Lido is pretty cool, but it goes flat incredibly fast. Like in less than a day :/

These cost me $99 and are superior to these, which cost me $250. If you want a comparison, skullcandy is pretty much the alienware of the headphone industry. So yeah, go with Sennheiser (unless you're open to other brands).

Don't bother attacking our points, just attack us. Nice job, idiot. (I would attack your points, but...you don't have any). EDIT: I think I'll give you that lesson now... COMING SOON. This is you saying that because you don't drive, Zierro's car analogy is flawed (I would love to see the reasoning behind this one...). This is me proving you wrong, because a lot of people drive (comparable to how many people drink, likely). Yes, I am proving that a lot of people drive; you saw what my point was but failed to understand it (oh how delicious!). So the lesson here is, read what the [bleep] people are saying; understand what they are saying; do not skim over it for two seconds and assume you understand completely! You (paraphrasing) - alcohol is bad because there are alternatives that don't cost as much. - alcohol is bad because it causes so many health problems (just look at the nhs!) Watch closely (and read this time!) Cars are bad because there are alternatives that don't cost as much. Cars are bad because they cause so many health problems (just look at the nhs!) [e.g. crashes, not as healthy as walking, et al.] Do you see now? Please tell me you do. I would hate for you to be ignorant as you are now (really, it's killing me inside). This is you saying to quote someone else. It is also you saying that it's YOU (singular) against US (plural). This didn't even have any relevance to what you were replying to. If I am to quote someone other than you, it must be myself, Zierro or plugpoint. A circle jerk is where people agree with each other in order to stroke their own ego's. So I would be engaging in a circle jerk with either Zierro or plugpoint (or going solo...) [hide=] [/hide] So you say Zierro's car analogy is flawed, having agreed with his point. You're not very good at this, are you? When people are trying to be SOCIAL there is a lot of pressure. Alcohol relieves that pressure. Motivation provides a greater pressure than social settings (thus overcoming the social pressure). It's a very difficult concept to grasp, I know, but just try and you might succeed. We're going to deviate from the English lesson a bit here. You cannot expect people to change something about themselves just like that (without help, anyway [alcohol to the resuce!]). If people are naturally shy, you can't just expect them to be the life of the party. Alcohol changes that. Would you rather enjoy yourself, or be bored? I want honest answers, mind. Alcohol has existed for a very long time. People have existed longer. Alcohol helps people enjoy themselves. If people discover that alcohol helps them enjoy themselves, do you think they'd rather not drink and not enjoy themselves, or drink and enjoy themselves? And my point is thus; human nature dictates we gravitate towards alcohol. Ancient humans included. Yeah, because I've never seen a news article saying how bad the alcohol problem is, and I've never had teachers telling me that alcohol is baaaaad :roll: And that is why you will remain ignorant. How I pity you (what a turnaround!). Hopefully you've learned something today.

The Aussie makes his triumphant return from a night of hard drinking! I was a bit worried for my liver back there, but I asked him this morning and he said he had fun. No, he didn't suffer any injury. Yes, he really is fine. He's not that much of a lightweight god dammit! No, he didn't "drown", so could we move on, please? We had a whole conversation about it. Oh, and he also said he Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels No I didn't throw up, no I didn't make an idiot of myself, no I'm not broke. And no hangover! My head thanks me for that. He also thanks Jack Daniels for the wonderful time he gave us (but don't tell my liver!). But I did have fun, I did relax, yes I opened up. Praise be, alcohol! And I'm going to do it all again tonight! So, getting back to a few of your points...(not solely contained in your most recent post - I've missed a lot :() I provided sources early on. But then I thought to myself, why bother going to all that trouble if my opponent isn't going to bother even making a coherent argument (who also thinks dictionary.com and a book are plenty enough for citing). I wouldn't expect others to make that effort either. Just because you haven't even considered driving doesn't mean it's an invalid comparison. This article puts the US population at 300 million as of October, 2006 (includes people who can't drive due to legal restrictions such as age - this is important).[1] This puts the number of registered passenger vehicles alone at 135.4 million (roughly).[2] (I am the credible Hulk! I cite my sources!). The number of total registered vehicles was 250.8 million (all 2006 statistics). So, as you can see, transport is very important (at least to Americans - I'm sure my Aussie compatriots, and most people, would agree). Zierro has already explained how your logic could be applied to cars (if you don't see that now there's no point in me reiterating what he's already said). Which reminds me, you're long overdue for a lesson in the English language (specifically: reading comprehension - no, I'm not a grammar Nazi). But that's for another time. And clearly, from the statistics, you're a minority when you say that you haven't considered driving. So, just because you haven't considered driving, that does not invalidate Zierro's point. Although I could have said as much without the explanation, but I like to put some effort and WEIGHT behind my arguments. So, to sum up, Zierro's car analogy still stands. You're the only one arguing for your side; would you prefer we quote each other and engage in a circle jerk? I'm not sure I know Zierro well enough for that. Or plugpoint. So of course we're going to quote you (this reminds me of Peter Harvey, and THE LAST WORD). I don't really get what you're trying to do here, unless it's a clever plot to agree with us on one point in hopes of distracting us from your other points. But, assuming I'm just paranoid; so you do agree on at least one of the points for alcohol; people have fun whilst intoxicated. I'm still waiting for your reply to the four points for alcohol that I raised a few pages back. Do you really think people have that motivation when they're just trying to be social? Not having a place to stay is a hell of a motivation for approaching people; where do expect that kind of motivation to come from if not alcohol, at least for social settings? Oh, and alcohol is just the stepping stone (or "gateway", as it were; but I hate that word). Once you're in, you won't need alcohol to be able to approach that person again (so it isn't a quick fix; it's quite permanent. A fair trade off, I would say). I would agree that alcohol abuse has become worse in recent years. But I would think you incredibly naive (or maybe I'm just too cynical) if you didn't think that if people can enjoy themselves, they will; alcohol provides that enjoyment (those sixteenth century guys sure know how to party!). Yes this is a Wikipedia article, but if you don't like that just follow the links provided in the citation section. Or just look up the facts provided on google and see if they are independantly confirmed. If only modern society thought alcohol was provided by the Gods :( (although the Babylonians (if I remember from the article correctly) disapproved of drunkenness - although modern society is the same, but drunkenness still abounds).

I hate to repeat myself (even when necessary), but are you being intentionally dense? Seriously? Oh, and I see what you were doing. Being defensive didn't work, being offensive didn't work, being lighthearted didn't work. Nothings working for you (hint: it's your arguments' fault). Personal attacks don't work either, they just show what an [wagon] you are. Incidentally, I think it's sad that you can't just man the [bleep] up. I think Zierro's got pretty much everything covered, so I'll just leave you with a few reasons why alcohol is good (not why I think it's good. Why it IS good). 1. It is a social lubricant. It takes tension away from social encounters so that people can be more open (ironically, by "being afraid to be themselves" as you put it, people become more genuine when they're on alcohol - clever, no?) 2. Alcohol helps people enjoy themselves. (An aside - when I said it was a fact that I had fun on alcohol, you said it was just an opinion. Of course you're wrong, because how can you know what I've experienced on alcohol? [bleep]. And you conveniently glossed over this when Plugpoint shot you down). 3. Alcohol helps people bond. There's nothing quite like drinking with a few mates in a private setting - hell, I was drinking with some guy I had just met through friends and by the end of the night we couldn't stop telling each other how much we loved each other (and he's one of my best mates now). 4. Helps people unwind. After a [cabbage]ty day at work, alcohol helps me unwind (pre-emptive strike: I don't drink during the week, so don't take that out of context like you've done for most of my posts ;)). Prove all those wrong, and I will gladly accept defeat (although you won't be able to, so maybe you should just quit).

Ok, that's great. It's obvious that you're failing to back up your arguments, and you've realised that, and now your just being an [wagon] in hopes of covering up said fact. We're not forcing our opinions on you. We're telling you why we think you're wrong. You are refusing to acknowledge this fact and becoming over defensive in an attempt to divert attention from your shabby arguments. As for the dizzle thing...people did answer to him. He did have to defend himself. But he hasn't posted in a few pages, so nobody has replied to him...do you understand now? Oh, and the reason we're constantly quoting you is not to force our opinions on you, it's to debate. But hey, I realise that when you're on a sinking ship you gotta grab onto anything that even looks like it might float. Look, are you being intentionally dense? I hate to accuse people of trolling because it's become a cliche, but you're really cutting it fine, buddy. It is a FACT that I had a positive experience whilst under the influence of alcohol. It is also a FACT that when you had alcohol you became violent and aggressive. You have used your experience for your argument; I have used mine. In doing so, I have invalidated your argument by showing that it is not universal. It's hard to read tone and whatnot over the internet, but from the way you've been writing, it's hard for people reading your posts (from what I've seen at any rate) to read it as anything other than you saying "alcohol is bad and should be outlawed" (please don't jump on that, because I am not saying you said that, I'm merely trying to get a point across). Hell, when you said "fun and relaxing" it was clear that you were skeptical at best, and very likely more than skeptical. No, what we are trying to do is point out where you are wrong - you present half baked arguments with little factual basis, and pass them off as ultimate truth. We are not saying we cannot have fun without alcohol (incidentally, it's [cabbage] like that that makes you a target). It's true that alcohol increases your risk of getting hurt - but so does playing RuneScape. So does sport. In fact, a lot of stuff people do for fun increases the risk of getting hurt (and not just to themselves - sport has incited riots before). Just think of it this way - RuneScape is to you as alcohol is to us. You play RuneScape for fun - we drink alcohol for fun. You've even paid for members, I note; should you be looked down upon because I can't understand why you'd want to waste your money on that game? Hell, you might even be addicted to it for all I know (I haven't drunk alcohol in a couple of months - can you quit RuneScape for a couple of months?). Oh, and I find it amusing that you model your personality after a drug addict.

Ok, well now you're just being a condescending turd. Not related to your most recent post, but if I read this correctly... ...is in reply to... And you don't seem to have a problem with it. Apologies if I read incorrectly, but what? I'm pretty sure plugpoint already said this, but I'll reiterate. Riku and dizzle (I think those are the two users you quoted) weren't being asshats (well, dizzle was but I don't think he pursued it too much). Riku made a legitimate point. All you are doing is throwing out half baked facts as if they are the ultimate truths. Oh, and when I said alcohol was fun and relaxing, that IS fact. The FACT is that when I drank, I had fun and was very relaxed. Just like it is a fact that when you drank you became violent and aggressive. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and acting like your experiences are the only valid ones makes you an asshat. A closing thought; you have proven to yourself that alcohol can be drunk in moderation (you've never been smashed - only tipsy). Why are you acting as if everyone but yourself is too irresponsible to handle alcohol? Oh, and House is a drug addict, by the way ;)

But you don't really see that side of the argument (you even stated there is no other side - which I pointed out to you). Hell, even your quotation marks make it clear that you don't accept that side (cause "it's a matter of opinion" - whereas what you're saying is "fact" :roll: ). Well, if we were attacking you, we'd be calling you [developmentally delayed]ed and an idiot (and not [kitty]footing around, either). Some people have...but not everyone. A sweeping generalisation based on a bad experience (much like what you're doing with alcohol). And in case you missed what I was saying when I said think on it, I'll elaborate; you stated that you always see drunk people doing stupid things, and used that as an argument. I stated that I have never seen what you have described. So...which one of us is right? When you read those books or watch those TV shows, do you never think that they might have an agenda? I will admit that often they will have facts and "research", but a lot of the time (if they're not an unbiased party) they'll suit the facts to their own needs. I'm not saying that what they're saying is completely wrong and entirely biased, but a lot of the time they don't give you the whole picture. I would also like to know where exactly you're getting your facts from. It is true that alcohol shrinks the brain [1]. Even being a vegetarian does, apparently (I must remember this for later...)[2]. But according to this, brain shrinkage is a common symptom of ageing and does not cause a loss of cognitive function [3]. Yes, I know that many teenagers do not drink in moderation. Also, that 20% you pulled out of your [wagon] doesn't mean [cabbage]. But I will ask you this; some people abuse it alcohol. Should everyone be disallowed alcohol? Even the responsible drinkers (not a part of what I quoted but I will answer it anyway - I have not drunk alcohol this year except for a shot of rum and a sip of bourbon and coke...in fact, most times I go out I don't drink, which funnily enough is because I hate the taste of most drinks, although Ruski's are quite nice). There have been deaths attributed to video gaming [4], [5], [6]. Should video games be disallowed because some have abused it? Likewise, should alcohol be disallowed because some have abused it? Admittedly, alcohol has more to answer for than video games, but I think my point is clear.

This is why you have to defend yourself. Your problem is that you refuse to see any arguments but your own...which are biased and based on "documentaries" and after school specials and what have you (which aren't a real source unless you provide the name ;)). As to the topic, drinking is good. In moderation. Oh, and I've never seen any of what you describe...since I haven't seen it, is it invalid? Think on it.

Oh, and this one, which is of course far superior to any cover now or ever ;) [hide=Manowar][/hide]

T Millard got it :(

Nope.

[hide=][/hide] This game was the worst $30 I've ever spent. Enjoy :P

Kingdom Hearts 2?

Neither does this.

Lotus Challenge?

The Lancet begs to differ. If you scroll down a bit you'll see a graph and table that places the physical harm of cannabis below that of tobacco.

I would, but unfortunately I am not Tron :(